PURPOSE: To explore factors affecting the glaucoma diagnostic capability of macular thickness and circumpapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (cRNFL) thickness as determined by spectral domain-optical coherence tomography. METHODS: Area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) discriminating healthy from glaucomatous eyes was determined using 10 macular thickness and 16 cRNFL thickness parameters. Glaucomatous eyes were categorized into two groups using four criteria according to whether cRNFL thickness or macular thickness measurement was better for glaucoma detection (cRNFL better group [RBG], macula better group [MBG], respectively). The clinical characteristics were compared between RBG and MBG. ROC regression analysis was conducted to identify variables affecting diagnostic capability using either macular thickness or cRNFL thickness measurements. RESULTS: Four hundred twenty-four glaucomatous patients and 297 healthy subjects were analyzed. Of all cRNFL parameters, average thickness showed the largest AUC (0.958). Of macular parameters, the inferior outer sector showed the largest AUC (0.880). More eyes were placed into the RBG than the MBG, making use of all four criteria (90 vs. 24, 143 vs. 46, 76 vs. 18, and 103 vs. 36, respectively). RBG patients had a smaller optic disc area than did MBG patients in 3 of the 4 criteria. Signal strength affected the diagnostic performance of cRNFL thickness measurement (P = 0.043), whereas that of macular thickness was not affected by any covariate analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, cRNFL thickness measurements were generally superior to those of macular thickness when used to diagnose glaucoma. Macular thickness parameters were of greater value in eyes with larger optic discs.
PURPOSE: To explore factors affecting the glaucoma diagnostic capability of macular thickness and circumpapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (cRNFL) thickness as determined by spectral domain-optical coherence tomography. METHODS: Area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) discriminating healthy from glaucomatous eyes was determined using 10 macular thickness and 16 cRNFL thickness parameters. Glaucomatous eyes were categorized into two groups using four criteria according to whether cRNFL thickness or macular thickness measurement was better for glaucoma detection (cRNFL better group [RBG], macula better group [MBG], respectively). The clinical characteristics were compared between RBG and MBG. ROC regression analysis was conducted to identify variables affecting diagnostic capability using either macular thickness or cRNFL thickness measurements. RESULTS: Four hundred twenty-four glaucomatouspatients and 297 healthy subjects were analyzed. Of all cRNFL parameters, average thickness showed the largest AUC (0.958). Of macular parameters, the inferior outer sector showed the largest AUC (0.880). More eyes were placed into the RBG than the MBG, making use of all four criteria (90 vs. 24, 143 vs. 46, 76 vs. 18, and 103 vs. 36, respectively). RBG patients had a smaller optic disc area than did MBG patients in 3 of the 4 criteria. Signal strength affected the diagnostic performance of cRNFL thickness measurement (P = 0.043), whereas that of macular thickness was not affected by any covariate analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, cRNFL thickness measurements were generally superior to those of macular thickness when used to diagnose glaucoma. Macular thickness parameters were of greater value in eyes with larger optic discs.
Authors: Ziad Khoueir; Firas Jassim; Linda Yi-Chieh Poon; Edem Tsikata; Geulah S Ben-David; Yingna Liu; Eric Shieh; Ramon Lee; Rong Guo; Georgia Papadogeorgou; Boy Braaf; Huseyin Simavli; Christian Que; Benjamin J Vakoc; Brett E Bouma; Johannes F de Boer; Teresa C Chen Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2017-08-12 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Huseyin Simavli; Linda Yi-Chieh Poon; Christian J Que; Yingna Liu; Mustafa Akduman; Edem Tsikata; Johannes F de Boer; Teresa C Chen Journal: J Glaucoma Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Kyung Rim Sung; Gadi Wollstein; Na Rae Kim; Jung Hwa Na; Jessica E Nevins; Chan Yun Kim; Joel S Schuman Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2012-09-27 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Huseyin Simavli; Christian John Que; Mustafa Akduman; Jennifer L Rizzo; Edem Tsikata; Johannes F de Boer; Teresa C Chen Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2014-12-09 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Diane L Wang; Ali S Raza; Carlos Gustavo de Moraes; Monica Chen; Paula Alhadeff; Ravivarn Jarukatsetphorn; Robert Ritch; Donald C Hood Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2015-11-30 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Zhiyong Yang; Andrew J Tatham; Robert N Weinreb; Felipe A Medeiros; Ting Liu; Linda M Zangwill Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-05-15 Impact factor: 3.240